GraXpert Denoise & NXT: The fundamental difference & WHY it matters!

[@quentinG_9841]

Unfortunately, with the youtube compression, we can’t see a lot of things in the test…

[@viewintospace]

Yes, I know, that is an extra-annoying issue….

[@HaraldKrause]

Thanks for this explanation. I use both tools.

[@jim_onnet]

Hey Sascha. QQ. How long does it take to denoise, let's say a 24-megapixel image on a Mac? In PC with NVidia and CUDA GPU acceleration it takes 20-30 seconds. Without GPU acceleration it might take up to a minute.

[@viewintospace]

With NXT it takes me less than 10 sec, and more than a minute for GraXpert

[@rvoykin]

Seems like Grax continues to be a work in progress as it’s always kind of been. It’s tough to lose nebula detail like you showed a little past half way in. I still like NXT while linear with a small amount like 30 or 40 and then some Topaz at the very end so I can eliminate any remaining color or lum noise. Doing it in two smaller phases seems to be more efficient at least for me.

[@elbass0]

I do exactly the same.

[@qx3V45p]

I have old PC using AMD Vega 64 gpu. Both run at same speed and takes seconds. Ditch the mac dude :p

[@shubinternet]

On my 14” M3 Max MacBook Pro with 128GB of RAM and the maximum number of CPU and GOU cores, I ran the PixInsight benchmarks, and it came out around 22,000. I think that shows that PixInsight is not well optimized for the Mac, when the top performing machines are in the 40k range for the benchmark. But, I don’t know of a way to benchmark GraXpert versus NoiseXterminator. That would be an interesting test.

[@CDigata]

its wrong to compare a basic pc, there both done in seconds on my pc using cuda ;)

[@JeffHorne]

I think Graxpert denoise is supposed to be used on linear data, and Noixe XT is to be used on stretched.

[@viewintospace]

No, that is not accurate. NXT should as stated by Russ preferably be applied in linear stage, but can also be used in non-linear stage